TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce in the submission of the Learned Advocate in respect of demand of duty of ₹ 5,75,062.00, as the lower authorities should have verified to documents as placed by the appellants. - appellants cleared the goods under the description of Second Grade Enameled Wires of Copper-SWG Mix Size . The Adjudicating Authority observed that the cartoons were indicating F or M for fine or medium type of goods. It was observed that the description the invoices were not tallying with the grade, size as mentioned in the production slip. We find that it is evident from the record that the appellant company cleared the goods, mix size, medium grade as mentioned in the invoices and cartoons, which were arising after the production stage. The material av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt company. No discrepancy was found on stock verification. The said officers seized the production reports and a personal diary of Mr. K.S. Tiwari, Production Manager of the appellant company. On the same day, the said officers also carried out search at the dealers premises namely M/s. A.R. Enterprises and at the residence of its Proprietor Shri Rajesh Kantawala, to whom the appellant used to sell the copper wires. The copper wires lying of the godown and the residence of the dealer were seized on the ground that, the same were received by the dealer without payment of duty from the appellant company. The statements of the employees of the appellant company and dealers were recorded on different dates. 2. A Show Cause Notice Dated 07.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appellant company. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the seized goods and imposed redemption fine of ₹ 1,26,000.00 on the dealer and also imposed penalty of ₹ 74,000.00 under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the dealer. No penalty was imposed on the appellant company. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order. Hence, the dealer M/s. A.R. Enterprises filed another appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri J.C. Patel, the Learned Advocate is appearing on behalf of all the appellants except the dealer. Shri Willingdon C, Learned Advocate on behalf of the M/s A.R. Enterprises (i.e. dealer) by letter dated 15.09.2015 requested that the two appeals filed by M/s A.R. Enterprises may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found. In this context, he relied upon the various decisions of the Tribunal and High Court. The demand of ₹ 5,75,062.00 is also on the basis of the same diary. In this context, the Learned Advocate submits that the quantities reflected in the said diary are corroborating with R.G.I./Production register and cleared on payment of duty under Central Excise Invoices. He drew the attention of the Bench, the R.G.I./Production register. It is submitted that both the authorities had not examined this issue. It is also submitted that cross examination of Shri K.S. Tiwari was not allowed. 8. We find that both the demand of duty of ₹ 13,64,527.00 and 5,75,062.00 are on the basis of the seized diary of Shri K.S. Tiwari Production Manag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared the goods, mix size, medium grade as mentioned in the invoices and cartoons, which were arising after the production stage. The material available on record would show that the goods cleared second quality. Thus, the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that these goods are not second quality is without any basis and the demand of duty is not proper. 10. The demand of duty of ₹ 75,506.21 is in respect of the goods seized from the residence and godown of the dealer, the Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants contended that the said quantities were cleared under the cover of the Central Excise Invoices and on payment of duty and the copy of such invoices were at pages 306 to 310 of the appeal memorandum. In our view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
